Sunday, February 12, 2012

Hey Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences, the Oscars Suck

A week ago someone asked me a question – Who decides who wins the Oscars? The wrong people, I replied.

But hey, I’m a cantankerous critic who often questions the taste of the Oscar voters and the credibility of movie awards. The Oscars don’t celebrate true artistic achievement, because every year quality cinematic gems are ignored in favor of bourgeois beanbags. Nor do the awards celebrate commercial success, since the Academy regularly turns its nose up at blockbusters, even good ones.

What the Academy actually champions is an odd mixture of commercial, indie, garishly overblown, and politically correct tripe. It’s all about studio lobbying and network ratings, and the Best Picture award is just meant to serve as Hollywood’s poster-child. In fact some of the Oscar voters have not had anything to do with the movie industry for more than 30 years. That is why we see old fashioned scum like War Horse get nominated over more radical and challenging stuff like Martha Marcy May Marlene.

I stopped watching the Oscars three years ago. Because the winners not only don’t let me reflect my feelings about them, but they also make me reach out for a baseball bat and storm towards the Kodak Theater. An ideal awards ceremony would fairly represent all sides of filmmakers’ struggle, but the Oscars are simply rating-hungry Teevee shows that pummel an urgent need of self-gratification upon your face. Year after year the Oscar voters continue to prove that they are unconnected to any known human behavior. Year after year they set out explicitly to demonstrate their belief that there is no relation between art, showmanship and intelligence. And judging by this year’s nominees I’m beginning to wonder if the Academy deliberately invites ridicule.

The unreasonably schmaltzy War Horse, one of the worst ever Spielberg movies garnered an unbelievable SIX nominations. This wouldn’t matter if the film were universally acclaimed or the least bit interesting. Instead it is mind-numbingly saccharine and melodramatic; the direction is banal and the acting (apart from Benedict Cumberbatch) is just embarrassing. I am not an expert on filmmaking but I would like to know why a horsey movie that requires you to consume half a dozen Hajmola tablets to digest its cheese scored over a true masterpiece like 50/50. TheJoseph Gordon Levitt-Seth Rogen starrer achieves the impossible – it is a cancer comedy that combines humour with painful subjects, and not once do we feel the film’s tone shifting from one to the other. 50/50 is critically acclaimed, but the Academy didn’t bother to nominate even the cancer survivor writer Will Reiser, who lived to tell his story because of his belief that comedy can alleviate pain and make it easier to bear.

Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close, a movie that’s been disliked by every film lover I know and derided by the majority of the top Hollywood critics, received a Best Picture nomination. The Steven Daldry film is so self-important and manipulative in milking the 9/11 theme that it encourages us to pat ourselves on the back for tolerating it. But Richard Ayoyade’s exceptionally quirky bittersweet dramedy Submarine, and Steven Soderbergh’s magnificent Contagion, two films that bowled over both critics and audiences didn’t get even a whiff of the nominee ballots. Both those films also feature the best soundtracks of the year, but the Academy decided to have just two nominees for Best Original song, booting out Alex Turner’s glorious tracks for Submarine in the process. To add to the tomfoolery, neither of the two songs that were nominated will even be performed during the Oscars show.

The travesty doesn’t end there. Tilda Swinton, whose turn in We Need To Talk About Kevin tops even her own previous roles could not find a berth in the Best Actress slot. Among the year’s great performances you won’t find a greater one than Swinton as a traumatized mother. Anyone unable to find something extraordinary with her character should not only be not allowed to vote, but also not be allowed to watch films.

Laughably, Rooney Mara scored a Best Actress nom, despite playing a watered down version of the character played by Noomi Rapace three years ago in the original The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. Fincher’s remake has a lot of nudity, and I can think of two reasons why Mara, and not Swinton delighted the Oscar voters.

Moreover, the jury seemed to be stoned or confused about which of the six Jessica Chastain films to vote for. She received a Best Supporting Actress nom for her one dimensional character in The Help instead of for Tree Of Life which required thrice as much conviction. And the less said about Elizabeth Olsen’s snub and Glenn Close’s inclusion, the better - if makeup and costumes add to an actor’s Oscar eligibility then Eddie Murphy should’ve won a statuette or two for Norbit.

If all that weren’t enough, Spielberg’s The Adventures of Tintin, a double Annie award winner and a favourite to win the Animation Oscar failed to score even a nom. I am all for endorsing films about cats, but Puss In Boots’ nomination made me gag. The fact that the Academy embraced a spinoff of the Shrek franchise and ignored a fresh film with a five-minute long single-take motorbike-boat-tank chase baffles me.

But the biggest, most shameless display of the Academy’s moral simplemindedness comes with their complete disregard for Steve McQueen’s Shame and its star Michael Fassbender. The Oscar voters didn't pick Fassbender’s character, a shallow self-gratifying wanker, because they probably are the same. Independent Cinema is an oxymoron, and it looks like poor McQueen will have to sculpt his whole career out of jumping from festival to festival, keeping his work alive with the grants, prizes, and prestige that come at international festival screenings. Instead of Fassbender, Gary Oldman was curiously nominated for his role in Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy - hischaracter is neither a crowd pleaser like Brad Pitt in Moneyball nor even especially likable. The real reason behind Oldman’s nomination seems to be the Academy’s addiction to high grade cocaine or the need to flaunt their ‘generosity’ of including commercially unsuccessful cinema.

But ultimately it is futile to criticize these ludicrous awards. Everyone will be glued to their Teevees on Feb 26, because peopleregard the Oscars as an occasion to sit with family and friends, and admire the celebs, make fun of their daft acceptance speeches, or gaze at their gowns and cleavage.

I, on the other hand, shall be busy with my Joe Sacco graphic novels, not giving a fuck.

I completely agree with you on 50/50, the Academy should be ashamed with itself for totally ignoring it.

But somehow I don't share your same enthusiasm about 'Submarine'. The heady mixture of same old teenage identity crisis, the angst and ridiculous obsession with his parents' copulatory pattern was a bit too convoluted to be funny, and I felt it verged on being irritating in the end.

The Academy's rules for Animation are hilariously ridiculous. "An animated feature film is defined as a motion picture with a running time of greater than 40 mins, in which movement and characters’ performances are created using a frame-by-frame technique. Motion capture by itself is not an animation technique". They gave the Oscar to 'Happy Feet'.

Read a lot of your posts, but never felt commenting on them for I wasn't completely in agreement with your opinions. This post however has a coherence with my thoughts about the Oscar nominations.

For me 50/50, shame and tintin not being nominated was the biggest sham of the oscars! I do not see a point in Academy Awards Panel thumping their chests about conducting a 'grand' Oscar ceremony if they cannot acknowledge the 3 best films of the year! Submarine though did catch my attention that much. But should have been nominated atleast!

"Laughably, Rooney Mara scored a Best Actress nom, despite playing a watered down version of the character played by Noomi Rapace three years ago in the original The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo." Fincher's version is an adaptation of the novel (and a truer one at that) and not a remake of the Swedish film, so the term 'original' here is misleading. Rapace's role was more of a confident,sexy,tortured femme fatale which the audience always love. It just wasn't the same vulnerable,child-like,autistic and exploited Lisbeth that Larsson intended. So the watering down (exactly which aspect of Salander's role was watered down,you think?) is quite justified. Judging the movie and role by its own merits, Rooney Mara was a revelation which is why most critics loved her performance and she deserves her nom.

"Fassbender’s character, a shallow self-gratifying wanker," I understand your urge to castigate the Academy but from all the reviews I've read, his character seems neither shallow nor self-gratifying.

" Gary Oldman was curiously nominated for his role in Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy - his character is neither a crowd pleaser like Brad Pitt in Moneyball nor even especially likable." Well, Tilda's role wasn't crowd-pleasing nor was her character likeable. Maybe that explains the lack of a nom for her.

"The real reason behind Oldman’s nomination seems to be the Academy’s addiction to high grade cocaine or the need to flaunt their ‘generosity’ of including commercially unsuccessful cinema." Or...maybe they are honouring one of the greatest working actors for a superbly understated performance as well as a worthy body of work ? Just a thought.

Okay so they did double standards but my point was right? Honestly, I dont think Tintin in any form doesnt need an Oscar to prove what an awesome childhood I had cuz of him :).... and Dude wheres my "Sherlock" ending post?

I thought Rooney Mara had terrific presence ,especially taking on an already famous role but playing it on her own terms and bringing a child-like vulnerability to it while being aggressive, which was what the character was originally meant to be like."Rapace's Salander wasn't sexy" She was, relatively! She's all woman. Because of her femininity, she ended up giving her character unwarranted sexiness (for this role). Mara's emaciated frame is not sexy in any way which was perfect for the role. "the character itself isn't supposed to be a sexy femme fatale" True. In the Swedish film, Noomi Rapace was a mysterious goth girl who exacts revenge from her rapist, and then moves on to save the day when Blomkvist gets into trouble. None of these events change her profoundly. She is the same mysterious goth girl as before. Also she never seems like she had trouble connecting with fellow humans , just that she chooses not to (except for that nice guardian of hers). Her inner workings aren't clear. That's why her role never rises above a femme fatale. Mara's character was written so well that you notice she doesn't engage in eye contact with people often (she's probably autistic), is wary of Craig's mere touch when she starts working for him and is always distrustful of anyone she interacts with. She obviously carries psychological scars from her past. She is vulnerable, human and affected by everything that happens to her. You can even see how the course of events of the film change her. After the entire episode ends, she genuinely feels a connection with MB only to be hurt again by unrequited affection. Fincher's version got the character right and of course, an actor's performance owes much to the role he/she plays. And Mara was terrific. This role didn't need magnetism, anyway.

Regarding Shame, every review I've read was sympathetic to a sex addict who tries very much to overcome his addiction and forge genuine relationships but falls back right into it because he is severely addicted. He seems like a complex guy. How does 'shallow' apply here? Or 'self-gratifying wanker' when he's clearly suffering because of his addiction? Baffled by your choice of words.

Awesome post bro..... loved what you wrote about 50/50 ..... I'm 29 years old and I had tears in my eyes when I saw that movie ...... also agree that rooney mara didn't deserve a nomination when lisbeth was done so well by noomi rapace

Good points made. I'm in the same league for War Horse a 'self congratulatory' film of a horse alleviated to a ridiculous degree! There are however some positives too. Really pleased that 'A Separation' (though foreign) got a screenwriting nomination. Storytelling in that movie is brilliant and glad that the academy noticed it!

You have to embrace the Academy for what it is. This is how it has worked over the last 80 years and will continue to. Artists who have been long overdue sometimes win for a work that is clearly not their best- a career prize. Better works get snubbed because they don't play to the requirements of the voters, and it is high time one got used to it. I know it is clearly not fair and all that, but at least it is not the Filmfare.

Sadly the oscar voters are not yuppies like you....at least you have to recognize the fact that the oscar voters are industry people and not critics...there is a certain sanctity to the oscars...there have been snubs no doubt prominent ones like brokeback, saving private ryan but these are few and far between...one of the great david vs goliath moment in oscars was hurt locker triumphing over avatar (*cringe*)...so oscars are not all that bad...further u have to realise one thing which u seem to have forgotten that the movies have to be seen by the voters to vote for them...they cannot just read critics opinions and vote..look at shame...it was distributed by fos search....they believed they have a strong contender in descendants and put their limited dollars in that movie and not in shame which they believed is not broad based...taking the example of drive..its distributor was filmdistrict...a small company with limited money...its not a ideal world man live with it....for people like you there is always metacritic's annual list which compiles the critics top 10's....u can jerk off to that

Always had a problem with your reviews coz you are biased for your friend Anurag Kashyap's films and only other indie films. But this post is too good. Agree with everything you said about the Academy and the voting farce. Converted. You should do more features every week.

This is the most stupid, worthless trash I've read all year. You know nothing about films. You are the only one who calls '50/50' a masterpiece, its just a good film. You dont know the meaning of masterpiece....'The Tree of Life' , 'Shame' 'A Seperation' theses are masterpieces. The reason why melodramas are still nominated is that >60 % of the oscar voters are aged above 50. First learn the fucking facts. You fucking dont know how best films are nominated.... They require that one big vote from the producers who vote them as the best film of that year. Thats how its done learn the facts...Basically no one gives a shit ( you dont deserve 'no one gives a fuck') about your baseless, garbage opinion. You are a pure loser. Its for forever alone losers like you shit awards like 'Ghanta Awards' & 'Golden Kela' awards are invented. Go watch them & be happy. Because of ignorant stupids(only you) like you even the most prestigious awards in film are getting baseless comments. First learn about film & then speak. Just watching 500 movies in 4 years neither make u a film critic nor a movie buff...looser. Bahaaaaha You are just one ignorant dumb-wit.. You stand on par with scum-bags like Michael Bay,Pritam & Anu Malik

I agree with most of the things in this but some i feel are wrong, i think gary oldman deserves to have been nominated and yes so did michael fassbender but not at the expense of gary oldman, his role required a lot of underplaying, he played an observer, a silent watcher and that might not strike a person as something exciting or interesting but does require a different set of acting skills. I think fassbender shud have nominated , like they could have had an extra nomination but if they cant go over the limit for nominations then i think gary oldman is still more deserving. Also because gary oldman is one of the best actors of his generation and has yet not been nominated for an oscar so i think sentiments also play a part. Other than that i more or less agree with everything else